1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 17, 2011, for the purpose of improving the agreement on protruding and open bridge, the Plaintiff was consulted with Cental clinic (hereinafter “Defendant Council member”) operated by the Defendant. The Defendant, through photographing, etc. on August 23, 2011, diagnosed the Plaintiff as an open intersection (Class 1 illegal intersection) and an open intersection.

B. At the Plaintiff’s request that the Defendant does not want dental treatment, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to receive correctional treatment for an open school agreement.

Accordingly, from August 29, 201 to July 2012, the Plaintiff received correctional treatment from the Defendant’s member.

E. At present, the Plaintiff complained of inconvenience, such as misunderstanding the location of a baby, sound in the baby, and seeing the location of the baby to return to its original state.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 11-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. During the Defendant’s correctional treatment process, the Plaintiff at the examination, diagnosis, and treatment negligence caused side effects, such as the damage to the flachiring, flachiing, ginginging, and flachiing in the flachi, and flachiing in the flachi.

B. The Defendant, who poorly prepared a written request for medical treatment, did not properly state the symptoms of the Plaintiff’s appeal by transferring the Plaintiff to Seoul National University Hospital, and the occurrence of drinking in a baby, etc., so that the Seoul National University Hospital could not receive accurate diagnosis and treatment against the Plaintiff.

C. The Defendant, in violation of the duty to explain, did not properly explain the side effects of the Plaintiff, such as gringing grings that may arise in the course of correction, grings, and excessive frings, and the method of treatment, and did not infringe the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination regarding treatment.

The defendant is negligent in the above medical negligence to the plaintiff.